Why LLMs Hallucinate on Structured Knowledge: A Mechanistic Analysis of Reasoning over Linearized Representations
On the map: LLM reasoning → Hallucination detection and mitigation
Abstract (arXiv)
In many reasoning tasks, large language models (LLMs) rely on structured external knowledge, such as graphs and tables, which is typically linearized into sequential token representations. However, even when sufficient knowledge is available, LLMs can still produce hallucinated outputs, and the underlying mechanisms behind such failures remain poorly understood. We investigate these mechanisms and find that hallucinations arise from systematic internal dynamics rather than random noise. First, attention disproportionately concentrates toward shortcut-like structural cues rather than distributing across the full context. Second, feed-forward representations fail to ground the provided knowledge, causing the model to revert to parametric memory. Moreover, our results indicate that hallucination is consistently associated with failures in semantic grounding within feed-forward layers, while attention allocation exhibits greater task-dependent variability. Finally, we show that these mechanistic patterns generalize beyond single-hop graphs to multi-hop and tabular settings, enabling effective hallucination detection across structured knowledge formats.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Hallucination detection and mitigation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 10 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 May 2026.
Builds on
10 of 37 references.
References · 10
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
- 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
- 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
- 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
- 2016Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehensioncited by 278
- 2024ReDeEP: Detecting Hallucination in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 100
- 2024FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows"cited by 85
- 2025SEReDeEP: Hallucination Detection in Retrieval-Augmented Models via Semantic Entropy and Context-Parameter Fusioncited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Detection and Mitigation of Hallucination in Large Reasoning Models: A Mechanistic Perspective
- 2025Hallucination Detection via Internal States and Structured Reasoning Consistency in Large Language Models
- 2025Detecting Hallucinations in Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Attention Patterns and Semantic Alignment
- 2025D2HScore: Reasoning-Aware Hallucination Detection via Semantic Breadth and Depth Analysis in LLMs
- 2025Auditing Meta-Cognitive Hallucinations in Reasoning Large Language Models
- 2026When Do Hallucinations Arise? A Graph Perspective on the Evolution of Path Reuse and Path Compression
- 2026Attention Dispersion as a Diagnostic Signal for Hallucination in Large Language Models
- 2026Sanity Checks for Long-Form Hallucination Detection